Growth stimulatory angiotensin II type-1 receptor is upregulated in breast hyperplasia and in situ carcinoma but not in invasive carcinoma.

Two different receptors which bind angiotensin II specifically have been identified in humans and were designated angiotensin II type-1 receptor (AT1) and angiotensin II type-2 receptor (AT2). They only have 34% sequence homology and act through different signalling pathways. AT1 stimulation has been implicated in hypertrophy and hyperplasia in various tissues. In order to study the involvement of AT1 in tissues from controls (n=10) and patients with hyperplasia (n=33), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n=23) and invasive carcinoma of the breast (n=25), we tested biopsies and breast-derived cell lines using immunocytochemistry, in situ hybridisation and cell proliferation techniques. The results show specific overexpression of AT1 receptor on the cytoplasmic membrane of cells of hyperplastic lesions with and without atypia and on DCIS of the breast. Evidence for growth stimulation is provided by in vitro experiments showing growth induction by angiotensin II of T47D cells which express the AT1 but not the AT2 receptor. The expression of AT1 on the cell membrane disappears in invasive breast cancer cells suggesting a regulatory pathway which is no longer needed in invasive carcinoma. The specific AT1 expression upregulation might well be an important step in the pathogenesis of hyperplasia of the breast, which is regarded as a precursor lesion for breast cancer.

Radiotherapy of prostate cancer with or without intensity modulated beams: a planning comparison.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) by static segmented beams allows the dose to the main portion of the prostate target to escalate while keeping the maximal dose at the anterior rectal wall at 72 Gy. The value of such IMRT plans was analyzed by comparison with non-IMRT plans using the same beam incidences. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a planning study on the CT data of 32 consecutive patients with localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Three fields in the transverse plane with gantry angles of 0 degrees, 116 degrees, and 244 degrees were isocentered at the center of gravity of the target volume (prostate and seminal vesicles). The geometry of the beams was determined by beam's eye view autocontouring of the target volume with a margin of 1.5 cm. In study 1, the beam weights were determined by a human planner (3D-man) or by computer optimization using a biological objective function with (3D-optim-lim) or without (3D-optim-unlim) a physical term to limit target dose inhomogeneity. In study 2, the 3 beam incidences mentioned above were used and in-field uniform segments were added to allow IMRT. Plans with (IMRT-lim) or without (IMRT-unlim) constraints on target dose inhomogeneity were compared. In the IMRT-lim plan, target dose inhomogeneity was constrained between 15% and 20%. After optimization, plans in both studies were normalized to a maximal rectal dose of 72 Gy. Biological (tumor control probability [TCP], normal tissue complication probability [NTCP]) and physical indices for tumor control and normal tissue complication probabilities were computed, as well as the probability of the uncomplicated local control (P+). RESULTS: The IMRT-lim plan was superior to all other plans concerning TCP (p < 0.0001). The IMRT-unlim plan had the worst TCP. Within the 3D plans, the 3D-optim-unlim had the best TCP, which was significantly different from the 3D-optim-lim plan (p = 0.0003). For rectal NTCP, both IMRT plans were superior to all other plans (p < 0.0001). The IMRT-unlim plan was significantly better than the IMRT-lim plan (p < 0.0001). Again, 3D-optim-unlim was superior to the other 3D plans (p < 0. 0007). Physical endpoints for target showed the mean minimal target dose to be the lowest in the IMRT-unlim plan, caused by a large target dose inhomogeneity (TDI). Medial target dose, 90th percentile, and maximal target dose were significantly higher in both IMRT plans. Physical endpoints for the rectum showed the IMRT-unlim plan to be superior compared to all other plans. There was a strong correlation between the 65th percentile (Rp65) and rectal NTCP (correlation coefficient > or =89%). For bladder, maximal bladder dose was significantly higher in the IMRT-unlim plan compared to all other plans (p < or = 0.0001).P+ was significantly higher in both IMRT-plans than in all other plans. The 3D-optim-unlim plan was significantly better than the two other 3D plans (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: IMRT significantly increases the ratio of TCP over NTCP of the rectum in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, constraints for TDI are needed, because a high degree of TDI reduced minimal target dose. IMRT improved uncomplicated local control probability. In our department, IMRT by static segmented beams is planned and delivered in a cost-effective way. IMRT-lim has replaced non-modulated conformal radiotherapy as the standard treatment for prostate cancer.

The single-isocentre treatment of head and neck cancer: time gain using MLC and automatic set-up.

PURPOSE: In this manuscript, we studied the difference in the treatment time required to execute a single-isocentre three-field irradiation of the head and neck, using either tray-mounted cerrobend blocks or a multileaf collimator (MLC) for field shaping and automatic set-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of twenty consecutive, unselected patients (16 males, four females), were eligible for this study because the dose they were to received was 44 Gy (2 Gy/fraction) to the head, neck and supraclavicular regions. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups. The first group (n = 11) was treated on a Philips SL-75 linear accelerator (SL-75), using 5 MV photons and tray-mounted cerrobend blocks. The second group (n = 9) was treated on a Philips SL-25 linear accelerator (SL-25-MLC), using 6 MV photons and a MLC. Patients of the second group were treated using the automatic set-up facility of the SL-25-MLC, without entering the treatment room between consecutive fields. RESULTS: Overall treatment time was significantly shorter on the SL-25-MLC than on the SL-75 (P < 0.0001). The difference in total treatment-execution time was in the range of 157 s per treatment session. The largest difference was observed in the set-up time. There was an average of a 125 s time gain per treatment day (P < 0.0001) in favour of the SL-25-MLC. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to tray-mounted cerrobend blocks, a MLC and automatic set-up results in a significant time advantage when a single isocentre technique is used to treat head and neck cancer.

Off-line verification of the day-to-day three-dimensional table position variation for radiation treatments of the head and neck region using an immobilization mask.

Variation in the table height position for 175 treatments of 167 patients was calculated as a measure for day-to-day set-up precision in 2063 treatment sessions and resulted in a median standard deviation of 1 mm. The median standard deviations of table longitudinal and lateral position were 3 and 5 mm, respectively.